One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a
work around, but they want to know what the root cause was.
Problem description
It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database fr
om a backup. They were not doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the
services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
Error Details
The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed,
the data was restored from a backup tape and the following appeared in the S
QL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_D
ata.NDF' is not a valid database file header. The PageAudit property is inco
rrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file n
ame 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
System Details
SQL Server 7
NT 4
Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
4 * PIII 700 Mhz
2 GB RAM
40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
Regards
DavidDavid,
This scenario is a typical case why you should do backup using SQL Server BA
CKUP command instead of just
picking up the physical files. In general, it should work assuming that you
indeed get a consistent snapshot
of all files that constitutes a database. IMO, your best bet is to open a ca
se with MS Support for this.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Lascelles" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88D14DC8-AF33-4016-B5A3-1E391707D7F6@.microsoft.com...
> One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work a
round, but they want to
know what the root cause was.
> Problem description
> It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a b
ackup. They were not
doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.[
vbcol=seagreen]
> Error Details
> The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the da
ta was restored from a[/vbcol]
backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in s
uspect mode.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF
.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.ND
F.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.ND
F' is not a valid database
file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name[/v
bcol]
'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.[vbcol=seagreen]
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF
.
> System Details
> SQL Server 7
> NT 4
> Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
> 4 * PIII 700 Mhz
> 2 GB RAM
> 40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
> 9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
> 32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
> Regards
> David
Showing posts with label customers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label customers. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
database failure to restore from NT backup
One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to know what the root cause was
Problem descriptio
It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape
Error Detail
The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF
System Detail
SQL Server
NT
Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model
4 * PIII 700 Mh
2 GB RA
40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Driv
9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1"
32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+
Regard
DavidHello,
Have you seen this from Microsoft ?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;268481
J
>--Original Message--
>One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We
have instigated a work around, but they want to know what
the root cause was.
>Problem description
>It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to
restore the database from a backup. They were not doing
backups to disk, just to shutting down the services &
doing a cold NT backup to tape.
>Error Details
>The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array).
After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup
tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity
log. The database was in suspect mode.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up
database 'dataname'.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file
d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file
e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for
file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid
database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error.
The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF'
may be incorrect.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file
d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file
e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
>System Details
>SQL Server 7
>NT 4
>Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model
0
>4 * PIII 700 Mhz
>2 GB RAM
>40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
>9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
>32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet
Pro100+)
>Regards
>David
>.
>|||David,
This scenario is a typical case why you should do backup using SQL Server BACKUP command instead of just
picking up the physical files. In general, it should work assuming that you indeed get a consistent snapshot
of all files that constitutes a database. IMO, your best bet is to open a case with MS Support for this.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Lascelles" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88D14DC8-AF33-4016-B5A3-1E391707D7F6@.microsoft.com...
> One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to
know what the root cause was.
> Problem description
> It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not
doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
> Error Details
> The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a
backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database
file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name
'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
> System Details
> SQL Server 7
> NT 4
> Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
> 4 * PIII 700 Mhz
> 2 GB RAM
> 40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
> 9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
> 32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
> Regards
> David|||Juli
Thanks for the link, but the customer says that the Bull RAID controller is a Milex, not Adaptec,|||Ok, but does it use the Abaptec drivers such as graphics
tend to use the same ones ?
J
>--Original Message--
>Julie
>Thanks for the link, but the customer says that the Bull
RAID controller is a Milex, not Adaptec,
>.
>sql
Problem descriptio
It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape
Error Detail
The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF
System Detail
SQL Server
NT
Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model
4 * PIII 700 Mh
2 GB RA
40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Driv
9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1"
32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+
Regard
DavidHello,
Have you seen this from Microsoft ?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;268481
J
>--Original Message--
>One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We
have instigated a work around, but they want to know what
the root cause was.
>Problem description
>It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to
restore the database from a backup. They were not doing
backups to disk, just to shutting down the services &
doing a cold NT backup to tape.
>Error Details
>The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array).
After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup
tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity
log. The database was in suspect mode.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up
database 'dataname'.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file
d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file
e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for
file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid
database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error.
The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF'
may be incorrect.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file
d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
>2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file
e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
>System Details
>SQL Server 7
>NT 4
>Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model
0
>4 * PIII 700 Mhz
>2 GB RAM
>40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
>9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
>32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet
Pro100+)
>Regards
>David
>.
>|||David,
This scenario is a typical case why you should do backup using SQL Server BACKUP command instead of just
picking up the physical files. In general, it should work assuming that you indeed get a consistent snapshot
of all files that constitutes a database. IMO, your best bet is to open a case with MS Support for this.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Lascelles" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88D14DC8-AF33-4016-B5A3-1E391707D7F6@.microsoft.com...
> One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to
know what the root cause was.
> Problem description
> It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not
doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
> Error Details
> The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a
backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database
file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name
'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
> System Details
> SQL Server 7
> NT 4
> Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
> 4 * PIII 700 Mhz
> 2 GB RAM
> 40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
> 9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
> 32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
> Regards
> David|||Juli
Thanks for the link, but the customer says that the Bull RAID controller is a Milex, not Adaptec,|||Ok, but does it use the Abaptec drivers such as graphics
tend to use the same ones ?
J
>--Original Message--
>Julie
>Thanks for the link, but the customer says that the Bull
RAID controller is a Milex, not Adaptec,
>.
>sql
database failure to restore from NT backup
One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to know what the root cause was.
Problem description
It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
Error Details
The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
System Details
SQL Server 7
NT 4
Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
4 * PIII 700 Mhz
2 GB RAM
40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
Regards
David
David,
This scenario is a typical case why you should do backup using SQL Server BACKUP command instead of just
picking up the physical files. In general, it should work assuming that you indeed get a consistent snapshot
of all files that constitutes a database. IMO, your best bet is to open a case with MS Support for this.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Lascelles" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88D14DC8-AF33-4016-B5A3-1E391707D7F6@.microsoft.com...
> One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to
know what the root cause was.
> Problem description
> It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not
doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
> Error Details
> The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a
backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database
file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name
'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
> System Details
> SQL Server 7
> NT 4
> Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
> 4 * PIII 700 Mhz
> 2 GB RAM
> 40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
> 9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
> 32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
> Regards
> David
Problem description
It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
Error Details
The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
System Details
SQL Server 7
NT 4
Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
4 * PIII 700 Mhz
2 GB RAM
40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
Regards
David
David,
This scenario is a typical case why you should do backup using SQL Server BACKUP command instead of just
picking up the physical files. In general, it should work assuming that you indeed get a consistent snapshot
of all files that constitutes a database. IMO, your best bet is to open a case with MS Support for this.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"David Lascelles" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:88D14DC8-AF33-4016-B5A3-1E391707D7F6@.microsoft.com...
> One of our customers had a problem with SQL Server 7. We have instigated a work around, but they want to
know what the root cause was.
> Problem description
> It seems that they had disk problems, then wanted to restore the database from a backup. They were not
doing backups to disk, just to shutting down the services & doing a cold NT backup to tape.
> Error Details
> The server lost a disc (one of five from RAID5 array). After it was fixed, the data was restored from a
backup tape and the following appeared in the SQL Server activity log. The database was in suspect mode.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Starting up database 'dataname'.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Data.MDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.31 spid9 The header for file 'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' is not a valid database
file header. The PageAudit property is incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Device activation error. The physical file name
'e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Data.NDF' may be incorrect.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file d:\SQL\data\dataname_Log.LDF.
> 2004-04-29 19:36:45.32 spid9 Opening file e:\SQL\data\dataname2_Log.LDF.
> System Details
> SQL Server 7
> NT 4
> Bull Express5800 180Ra-7 Rack P-III Xeon 700MHz/1MB Model 0
> 4 * PIII 700 Mhz
> 2 GB RAM
> 40/80GB SCSI DLT Internal Tape Drive
> 9.1GB Ultra 160/m SCSI HDD 7.2Krpm (1")
> 32 bit PCI 10/100Mbps Ethernet Adapter (Intel Ethernet Pro100+)
> Regards
> David
Monday, March 19, 2012
Database Driven Website using SAN
We want to develop database driven website. because of enormous amount
of data (300GB)
customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
attached storage method.
I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
web solutions.? Which database
server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
suggests
good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
Thanks in advance
ssp2000"ssp2000" <ssp2000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78a9f1a5.0309290535.322076fb@.posting.google.com...
> We want to develop database driven website. because of enormous amount
> of data (300GB)
> customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
> attached storage method.
> I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
> web solutions.? Which database
> server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
> suggests
> good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
Basically any full featured RDBMS product like Oracle or MS SQL Server will
be fine. As far as using a SAN with those, you'll need to follow-up in the
appropriate RDBMS forums ...
--
Tom Kaminski IIS MVP
http://www.iistoolshed.com/ - tools, scripts, and utilities for running IIS
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/|||In addition to what Tom posted, there should be no issues in a web solution,
or any other application, directly related to using a SAN. The SAN
basically handles IO and storage transparently. Most SAN products are
designed to support IO-intensive environments and have features (sometimes
additional $) for managing large volumes of data, particularly
backup/restore and disaster recovery.
--
Bob
Microsoft Consulting Services
--
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||In addition to what Tom and Bob's comments, I just want to add that, 300GB
isn't really that large these days. However, you also need to consider its
backups, and most likely you would need a Dev/QA environment as well.
Perhaps, tomorrow you'll be asked to support a reporting server. Very
quickly and easily, you can find yourself having to deal with near or over
one terabyte of data.
SAN gives you more flexibility in handling these varying factors in disk
storage requirements.
--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"ssp2000" <ssp2000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78a9f1a5.0309290535.322076fb@.posting.google.com...
> We want to develop database driven website. because of enormous amount
> of data (300GB)
> customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
> attached storage method.
> I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
> web solutions.? Which database
> server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
> suggests
> good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
> Thanks in advance
> ssp2000
of data (300GB)
customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
attached storage method.
I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
web solutions.? Which database
server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
suggests
good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
Thanks in advance
ssp2000"ssp2000" <ssp2000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78a9f1a5.0309290535.322076fb@.posting.google.com...
> We want to develop database driven website. because of enormous amount
> of data (300GB)
> customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
> attached storage method.
> I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
> web solutions.? Which database
> server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
> suggests
> good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
Basically any full featured RDBMS product like Oracle or MS SQL Server will
be fine. As far as using a SAN with those, you'll need to follow-up in the
appropriate RDBMS forums ...
--
Tom Kaminski IIS MVP
http://www.iistoolshed.com/ - tools, scripts, and utilities for running IIS
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/iis/|||In addition to what Tom posted, there should be no issues in a web solution,
or any other application, directly related to using a SAN. The SAN
basically handles IO and storage transparently. Most SAN products are
designed to support IO-intensive environments and have features (sometimes
additional $) for managing large volumes of data, particularly
backup/restore and disaster recovery.
--
Bob
Microsoft Consulting Services
--
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||In addition to what Tom and Bob's comments, I just want to add that, 300GB
isn't really that large these days. However, you also need to consider its
backups, and most likely you would need a Dev/QA environment as well.
Perhaps, tomorrow you'll be asked to support a reporting server. Very
quickly and easily, you can find yourself having to deal with near or over
one terabyte of data.
SAN gives you more flexibility in handling these varying factors in disk
storage requirements.
--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"ssp2000" <ssp2000@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78a9f1a5.0309290535.322076fb@.posting.google.com...
> We want to develop database driven website. because of enormous amount
> of data (300GB)
> customers's tech advisor is insisting on using SAN instead of direct
> attached storage method.
> I want to know what issues need to be considered while using SAN in
> web solutions.? Which database
> server/ product is best suited for such kind of job ? Can anyone
> suggests
> good informative articles on this subject , available on web.
> Thanks in advance
> ssp2000
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Database design question
My company presently creates a sql server database containing detailed
billing information for each of its customers and ships it to them
each month along with an application to view the data and create
reports. These databases contains 99% read only data and most of them
are less than 100Mb. They are looking at providing a web based app
which provides the same functionality however, they do not want to
modify the back end system which creates these individual databases.
I personally am advocating a single large db which would require
modification of the present system but, I am looking for feedback on
either side. Does anyone know of any documentation which compares
these types of designs? Does anyone have experience with a system
which has many databases which are dynamically attached and detached
(we don't anticipate more than 100 databases attached at one time)?
What type of performance was achieved? What maintenance issues did
you encounter?
TIA,
RossPeople can argue about this forever... However there are a couple of issues
you may wish to consider...
1. When you have a large number of databases, the SQL Tools get less
usefull. It seems to take a Lonnnng time opening up Enterprise Manager (for
instance.)
2. If you put things into a single database, you can no longer simply detach
and copy (because the database would contain information for other users .)
However, if you had a web app, you wouldn't have to do the detach at all
(unless your customers are going to require it..?)
Unless there are backup/restore issues or the detach/attach issue , I would
prefer having a single database - Less maintenance, easier use of tools, no
problem with applications - all good.
But reasonable people will differ -
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
(www.sqlpass.org)
"Ross Bonner" <rosspb3@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47257b97.0403090954.82e83e3@.posting.google.com...
> My company presently creates a sql server database containing detailed
> billing information for each of its customers and ships it to them
> each month along with an application to view the data and create
> reports. These databases contains 99% read only data and most of them
> are less than 100Mb. They are looking at providing a web based app
> which provides the same functionality however, they do not want to
> modify the back end system which creates these individual databases.
> I personally am advocating a single large db which would require
> modification of the present system but, I am looking for feedback on
> either side. Does anyone know of any documentation which compares
> these types of designs? Does anyone have experience with a system
> which has many databases which are dynamically attached and detached
> (we don't anticipate more than 100 databases attached at one time)?
> What type of performance was achieved? What maintenance issues did
> you encounter?
> TIA,
> Ross|||The number of databases used will be large, we presently produce one db
per customer per month, we still haven't decided how many months worth
of data to retain, but it will probably be at least 3 months. The web
app would have to dynamically attach and detach these databases as
needed since leaving all attached would exceed the 32768 database limit.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
billing information for each of its customers and ships it to them
each month along with an application to view the data and create
reports. These databases contains 99% read only data and most of them
are less than 100Mb. They are looking at providing a web based app
which provides the same functionality however, they do not want to
modify the back end system which creates these individual databases.
I personally am advocating a single large db which would require
modification of the present system but, I am looking for feedback on
either side. Does anyone know of any documentation which compares
these types of designs? Does anyone have experience with a system
which has many databases which are dynamically attached and detached
(we don't anticipate more than 100 databases attached at one time)?
What type of performance was achieved? What maintenance issues did
you encounter?
TIA,
RossPeople can argue about this forever... However there are a couple of issues
you may wish to consider...
1. When you have a large number of databases, the SQL Tools get less
usefull. It seems to take a Lonnnng time opening up Enterprise Manager (for
instance.)
2. If you put things into a single database, you can no longer simply detach
and copy (because the database would contain information for other users .)
However, if you had a web app, you wouldn't have to do the detach at all
(unless your customers are going to require it..?)
Unless there are backup/restore issues or the detach/attach issue , I would
prefer having a single database - Less maintenance, easier use of tools, no
problem with applications - all good.
But reasonable people will differ -
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
(www.sqlpass.org)
"Ross Bonner" <rosspb3@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47257b97.0403090954.82e83e3@.posting.google.com...
> My company presently creates a sql server database containing detailed
> billing information for each of its customers and ships it to them
> each month along with an application to view the data and create
> reports. These databases contains 99% read only data and most of them
> are less than 100Mb. They are looking at providing a web based app
> which provides the same functionality however, they do not want to
> modify the back end system which creates these individual databases.
> I personally am advocating a single large db which would require
> modification of the present system but, I am looking for feedback on
> either side. Does anyone know of any documentation which compares
> these types of designs? Does anyone have experience with a system
> which has many databases which are dynamically attached and detached
> (we don't anticipate more than 100 databases attached at one time)?
> What type of performance was achieved? What maintenance issues did
> you encounter?
> TIA,
> Ross|||The number of databases used will be large, we presently produce one db
per customer per month, we still haven't decided how many months worth
of data to retain, but it will probably be at least 3 months. The web
app would have to dynamically attach and detach these databases as
needed since leaving all attached would exceed the 32768 database limit.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)